CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE
P.O. BOX 357
QUINCY, CALIFORNIA 95971
Melanie Collins October 24, 1994
Hearing and Adjudication Unit
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Re: License 9143 (Application 15083) of Georgia-Pacific Corporation; Petition to Change Point of Diversion; Noyo River; Mendocino County; Comments by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Protestant.
Dear Ms. Collins:
Your letter of October 19, 1994, had a tone of urgency regarding the above mentioned petition and CSPA protest. Consequently, we are acting in good faith to resolve the CSPA protest and provide you with issues.
I have reviewed your letter of October 19, 1994. I have also reviewed the letter of August 17, 1992 from Georgia-Pacific to the CSPA which you included in your letter. I have also reviewed "Permit Term 60" which was also included in your letter. I reference said letters and Permit Term 60 to my response.
Permit Term 60 is dated June 8, 1981. Permit Term 60 spells out the terms and conditions of an agreement between Georgia-Pacific and the Department of Fish and Game.
It is my understanding a CEQA document was not prepared for said petition to change the point of diversion. Consequently, we have no environmental information and data whether the amount of water reserved for the steelhead resources during the summer months will cause elevated water temperatures lethal to cold water fish. Also, Permit Term 60 does not require the petitioner to screen the diversion to prevent steelhead trout from being entrained in said new diversion.
Your letter of October 19, 1994, was not forwarded to the Department of Fish and Game. Permit Term 60 was agreed upon in 1981. Consequently, we have no knowledge whether Permit Term 60 is adequate, or whether Permit Term 60 should be amended. Before the CSPA withdraws its protest, we are requesting written confirmation from the Department of Fish and Game that Permit Term 60 is adequate and keeps in good condition at all times steelhead trout that exist below the new point of diversion. I am forwarding my response to John Turner, Chief, Environmental Unit, Department of Fish and Game, for said written confirmation.
It is my understanding the fish flow requirements in Permit Term 60 were developed by "the seat of the pants" and not based on sound biological fishery studies. i.e. IFIM. Consequently, there is the potential that the daily fish flow requirements in Permit Term 60 may not be adequate to protect the steelhead resources of the Noyo River. We need written confirmation from the Department of Fish and Game that said daily fish flow requirements are adequate to protect the steelhead resources of the Noyo River.
We also do not know whether or not the mandatory daily fish flow requirements in Permit Term 60 protects the Noyo River lagoon and the steelhead trout resources.
From time to time, and perhaps most of the time, petitions do not find their way from the engineering section of the Division to the staff of the environmental unit of the Division. The CSPA rely on direct discussions with the staff of the environmental unit to determine whether or not fishery protection measures are adequate or not. We need to know whether or not the proposed project (new diversion) will not have any adverse impacts to steelhead trout and its habitat, and whether or not Permit Term 60 and said petition is in compliance with CEQA and its guidelines. That findings should be made by the staff of the Division's environmental unit.
Permit Term 60 is dated June 8, 1981. We do not have a copy of the water right permit for said diversion. Permit Term 60 contains mandatory daily fish flow requirements. We do not know whether the petitioner maintains a full time measuring device below the existing point of diversion, and whether or not the Division will require a full time measuring device below the new point of diversion. Full time measuring devices are the means to determine whether or not the Licensee is in compliance with the mandatory daily fish flow requirements. We also have no knowledge whether the Licensee was in compliance with the mandatory daily fish flow requirements since 1981. The question before you is has the Licensee been in compliance with the daily fish flow requirements in Permit Term 60 since 1981?
The Department of Fish and Game has prepared a draft management plan for steelhead trout in California. The Noyo River is included in said plan. We do not know whether the terms and conditions in Permit Term 60 comply with said management plan. Another good reason why the Department of Fish and Game needs to confirm that the terms and conditions of Permit Term 60 will protect steelhead resources in the Noyo River.
The CSPA is a party to a petition to list steelhead trout as either threatened or endangered in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. [New Information] Said petition passed the 90 day review period and is before the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. On February 14, 1995, the USNMFS will make a decision and determine whether steelhead trout will be listed under the protection of the federal ESA. CEQA and its guidelines requires that candidate species, such as steelhead trout in this case, are treated as either threatened and/or endangered in CEQA documents. Absent a CEQA document to date for said petition, there is the potential that Permit Term 60 may jeopardize said steelhead trout and its habitat in the Noyo River. The petitioner may find its necessary to obtain a biological opinion from USNMFS on this petition. [Section 7 of ESA]
On August 17, 1992, Georgia-Pacific Corporation answered the CSPA protest. Counsel for the Georgia-Pacific Corporation stated that " The CSPA apparently misunderstood the purpose of the petition. " Said answer does not satisfy the CSPA protest. Also, Counsel did not forward a copy of his answer to the Department of Fish and Game.
There are a number of unanswered environmental questions. We need to have them answered before the CSPA will dismiss said protest. We need to be assured that Permit Term 60 does in fact protect the steelhead trout resources of the Noyo River.
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Consultant
For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Bus Tel: 916-283-3767 (CSPA Quincy Office) or 916-283-1007 (Law Office)
cc: John Turner, Chief, Environmental Services
Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jim Bybee, Supervisor
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
777 Sonoma Avenue - Room 325
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Bruce Fodge, Environmental Unit
Division of Water Rights
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
Jim Crenshaw, President, CSPA
Bill Jennings, Chairman, CSPA
Mike Jackson, Counsel, CSPA
P.O. Drawer 207
Quincy, CA 95971
William E. Craig, Counsel
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Law Department
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Interested Parties
attachments